Case 2301063/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Aron Samu v Saxon Weald — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301063/2023
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Janet Jerram, Christopher Tansley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Aron Samu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Saxon Weald as Data Protection Officer from December 2019 until his summary dismissal on 3 October 2022. The tribunal accepted that an email sent on 6 May 2022 to Mr Stevens and Mr Slater was a protected disclosure for the purposes of the whistleblowing provisions. It did not find that the alleged separate disclosure to the ICO had been proved.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct, not whistleblowing. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant had sent emails to external business partners making confusing and unfounded allegations about data protection breaches, and that he had also sent around 700 work emails to his personal account through an unsecured channel, including sensitive personal data and special category data. The respondent self-reported the data breach to the ICO, and the tribunal held that the investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal were fair and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily without notice or notice pay. The whistleblowing detriment claim also failed: the tribunal rejected the asserted detriments, including alleged delays, conflict of interest, failure to let him explain his position, and suspension, finding that he had been given opportunities to set out his case and that the separate processes were handled distinctly.
On direct religion or belief discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant held the protected belief he relied on, but rejected Richard Stevens and Mark Slater as comparators because they were not in materially similar circumstances. Using a hypothetical comparator with the relevant data protection responsibilities and misconduct findings, the tribunal concluded that such a comparator would also have been dismissed. It therefore found no less favourable treatment because of religion or belief.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal accepted that the 6 May 2022 email to Mr Stevens and Mr Slater was a protected disclosure, but found that the dismissal was not because of that disclosure. The alleged disclosure to the ICO was not proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was gross misconduct: sending emails to external business partners and transferring around 700 emails, including sensitive and special category data, to an unsecured personal account. It found the respondent had a reasonable belief in misconduct and acted within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct, so the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss without notice or notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal rejected the alleged detriments, including lack of opportunity to explain, delay, conflict of interest, improper whistleblowing formalities, and suspension. It found the claimant was given opportunities to put his case and that any delays were of his own making. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the claimant held a protected philosophical belief, but rejected the proposed comparators and found a hypothetical comparator in materially similar circumstances would also have been dismissed. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.4 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Grainger Plc and others v Nicholson
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.